To the editor: I am sure that around our homes and the news pundits across the land, much discussion will take place over causes and solutions around the terrible tragedy we witnessed a few days ago in Newtown, Conn. May I suggest that Hollywood, the television and video games industry must also share equal responsibility for all these mass murders, along with the sellers of military assault rifles. The moviemakers and video game makers put way too much violence and blood into their products. It’s a wonder to me that even sane people don’t get contaminated, let alone some with mental deficiencies.

Consider a young person being exposed to such violent movies and games for years and years during the most crucial and important years of their development. No wonder some disturbed person goes off the deep end and becomes psychotic, being fueled with such trash and having their conscience seriously seared.

Just because the industries put different ratings on their products does not remove their culpability for contributing to the loss of beautiful innocent lives, be they young or old. When profits and riches are the goals at all cost, our society will continue to reap a harvest of grief and devastation. A lot of talk about gun control is on the airwaves, and rightfully so, but lets contact our representatives and insist they establish some serious control on what young minds can be polluted with.

Pastor Dick Arnold

Epping

To the editor: I read your above-the-fold article in today’s paper about local residents being split on tougher gun control measures with a cynical eye: the ongoing debate about gun control always spikes when there’s a tragedy such as the most recent one in Newtown, Conn.

Why is it that we can regulate who may own or drive an automobile — which is really a 4,000 pound bullet — but the thought of applying that same regulatory oversight to gun ownership is off the table? I can only roll my eyes when gun advocates claim that “if (pick one: teachers, legislators, college students, movie theater patrons, factory workers) were armed, they would be able to stop a deadly threat.” Really. So that’s the solution? Arm everyone?

I am a retired police officer with over 25 years of experience, and I am also a Vietnam veteran. It is a myth, perpetuated by Hollywood, that in a fire fight, a person can shoot from the hip, while running and in the midst of a deadly shootout, and hit his/her intended target with pinpoint accuracy. Even trained police officers find that to be a difficult thing to do, and these men and women receive regular training in the use of firearms. We had a saying in the police department: once you fire that round, you own it and you can’t take it back. The reality is that when someone is shooting at you, you would dive into a vat of horse manure in order to get away from the lead coming your way. It is a very surreal and frightening event, and not only does time get distorted, but one’s reactions go through a similar warping. This is why oftentimes, people cannot remember how many rounds were fired, whether or not they reloaded, or how much actual time transpired. It is a shocking, traumatic experience to be in a fire fight, and gun advocates are deluding themselves if they think that arming everyone would put an end to the type of violence we recently witnessed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

People with guns kill people, just like drunk drivers kill innocent people. But in the latter case, we don’t throw up our hands and say, hey, if a deranged person wants to get behind the wheel, we can’t stop it so it’s pointless to try. Society doesn’t take that position. Instead, the community mandates strict regulatory oversight and penalties if one violates the rules when driving a car. Can’t we do that with firearms? Is mandatory background checks so onerous to gun advocates that they can sit by and wait for the next tragedy to take place? Is eliminating the ability to purchase assault rifles that are clearly designed to shoot multiple bullets at a rapid pace such a bad idea? Does a deer hunter really need a 100-round magazine in order to have a good time in the woods?

We cannot eliminate every instance of a mentally deranged person acquiring the deadly means to wreak havoc, but we sure can make it more difficult for them to do that. Sadly, even as I write this, I am thinking there is another mentally unstable individual out there, oiling up his assault rifle, waiting to become the next tragic headline. We have got to find a better way to deal with this problem.

Len DiSesa

Dover

To the editor: I can’t be the only person who sees no reason for any individual to own an assault weapon, an automatic weapon, or a semi-automatic weapon, or a magazine that holds more than five bullets or shells.

I am not opposed to hunting, I have enjoyed target shoot.ng, but these are not sporting guns. What do sensible people need to do to stop this macho culture and save our children from mentally ill shooters with access to horrible weapons?

I know that I will now ask every candidate for office what his or her position on these killing machines is and will inform my votes by their answers. I hope others will have the courage to speak out and do the same.